Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really, you don't? Because we now have decades of empirical research that demonstrates that poor kids do worse in school, have more behavioral problems as a group and less involved parents.

Nobody has a knee-jerk reaction to one such poor child. A school comprised of 50% or more? Different experience in the classroom. I'm sorry that's painful to hear.

I can see the logic in this, but I also see counterexamples in this area where at least according to test results there is no tell-tale difference between kids with difference incomes. For instance you can scroll down and look at the test results for two completely opposite schools in the area, Bethesda Elementary with 6% FARMS: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/02401.pdf and Highland Elementary with 84% FARMS: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/02774.pdf I did see that Highland won a blue ribbon this year so should I think of this as some kind of outlier or a possibility that it can be done?

Have you looked at the disaggregated data?

Review Highland View - http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/02784.pdf

- Whites, grade 5, reading - 94.8
- LEP, grade 5, reading - 57.2
- FARMs, grade 4, math - 69.5
- LEP, grade 3, reading - 46.6


Students now or have in the past received FARMS (ever FARMs) - 49.9%

It makes a difference. Don't fool yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really, you don't? Because we now have decades of empirical research that demonstrates that poor kids do worse in school, have more behavioral problems as a group and less involved parents.

Nobody has a knee-jerk reaction to one such poor child. A school comprised of 50% or more? Different experience in the classroom. I'm sorry that's painful to hear.

I can see the logic in this, but I also see counterexamples in this area where at least according to test results there is no tell-tale difference between kids with difference incomes. For instance you can scroll down and look at the test results for two completely opposite schools in the area, Bethesda Elementary with 6% FARMS: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/02401.pdf and Highland Elementary with 84% FARMS: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/02774.pdf I did see that Highland won a blue ribbon this year so should I think of this as some kind of outlier or a possibility that it can be done?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's be clear about the income guidelines here. According to the MCPS website, a family of 4 qualifies for FARMS if their income is below $41,000 per year. As a comparison, the median family income in the United States according to Wikipedia is $45,000 per year. So the children getting FARMS in this area are not necessarily abjectly poor.

Wow. I can tell you've never had to try to raise your kids on 41K a year ....... We have three in our family and make about this much, and I can tell you, if we didn't have outside help, there are days we wouldn't eat.

OK I'll retract this because it's being read by people as ignorance or accusation. In truth you don't know what income I have had in my past. My point was not that $41,000 is a lot around here -- I get that. In my way I was just trying to defend these families by showing that they can be working professionals and make this income and still qualify for lunch aid. In my profession 41K would be a pretty common salary. The previous posts had made the families receiving FARMS out to be all alcoholics and neglectful parents, and I had written this in an attempt to defend them in some way.

Anonymous wrote:Also think about it if schools are spending resources on feeding the children it takes money away from resouces towards teaching children.

taking from article

There are a variety of explanations for why schools’ test scores are correlated with F/R meal percentage:
?More affluent families have more free time to support their kids in school
?Income is correlated with education, so higher income parents tend to have higher educations and tend to be more supportive of their children’s educations
?Income is correlated with education, so higher income parents tend to prioritize education higher for the children
?Less affluent parents are more likely to work two jobs or otherwise be less available to help their children with homework, volunteer in their classrooms, and so on.
?Income is also correlated with age, so parents in more affluent schools are likely to be older, on average, than parents in less affluent schools, which gives them a better ability to support their children academically
?Children in more affluent schools have a peer group more supportive of education in general, which helps pull up test scores for all students in that peer group
?More affluent schools have higher levels of financial support from their PTAs for support services like classroom aids, extra computers, and so on


The National School Lunch Program -- learn about it. Schools aren't taking instructional funding away from kids in order to feed them. And also this is county-wide -- it's not like schools with high FARMS rates get dinged with less funding because of food expenses.



http://www.bellevueschools.net/income-and-test-scores-in-the-bellevue-schools/

Also keep in mind these schools get a higher percentae of funding per student. Picture your child in a class of 12 as opposed to 28 (my DD K class) with more resource support as well. Yes there would no doubt be students in her class with some struggles but it also a huge difference in educational environment

Anonymous wrote:

The previous posts had made the families receiving FARMS out to be all alcoholics and neglectful parents, and I had written this in an attempt to defend them in some way.

Where precisely in this thread did you read those kinds of assertions?

Anonymous wrote:I think it's important to keep FARMS rates in perspective. I agree that schools with high rates (over 50%) can have more than their share of issues. But people are freaking out when the FARMS rate foes from 19% to 22%. That's just silly.

The previous posts had made the families receiving FARMS out to be all alcoholics and neglectful parents, and I had written this in an attempt to defend them in some way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's be clear about the income guidelines here. According to the MCPS website, a family of 4 qualifies for FARMS if their income is below $41,000 per year. As a comparison, the median family income in the United States according to Wikipedia is $45,000 per year. So the children getting FARMS in this area are not necessarily abjectly poor.

Wow. I can tell you've never had to try to raise your kids on 41K a year ....... We have three in our family and make about this much, and I can tell you, if we didn't have outside help, there are days we wouldn't eat.

Anonymous wrote:Let's be clear about the income guidelines here. According to the MCPS website, a family of 4 qualifies for FARMS if their income is below $41,000 per year. As a comparison, the median family income in the United States according to Wikipedia is $45,000 per year. So the children getting FARMS in this area are not necessarily abjectly poor.

Anonymous wrote:Really, you don't? Because we now have decades of empirical research that demonstrates that poor kids do worse in school, have more behavioral problems as a group and less involved parents.

Nobody has a knee-jerk reaction to one such poor child. A school comprised of 50% or more? Different experience in the classroom. I'm sorry that's painful to hear.